Science and Ecology
©Parker Forsell
Compost Teas: Microbial Hygiene and Quality
In Relation to Method of Preparation
W. Brinton*, P. Storms, E. Evans, and J. Hill
Woods End Research Laboratory
Introduction
There has been a considerable amount of debate about
compost teas since we first published a review paper from
our European work in this journal (BIODYNAMICS ).
At that time, little or no significant research had appeared
in the United States, or was confined to the efforts of small
growers who were not widely recognized. Biodynamic
growers have always prepared extracts and teas to some ex-
tent, such as comfrey tea, or steepages of biodynamic prepa-
rations, applied as soil sprays, root dips, or to composts.
With the earlier article, we sought to focus attention on the
preparation of extracts, popularly called “teas,” from mature
composts, possibly containing some manures, and steeped
non-mechanically for several days, which are then applied
in undiluted extracts to plant surfaces to effect some mea-
sure of disease control (Brinton ; Brinton et al. ).
A significant basis for this effort was our laboratory part-
nership in Bonn, Germany with A. Tränkner, a colleague of
H. Weltzien, whose pioneering work at Friedrich-Wilhelm
University on compost extracts first appeared in the Eng-
lish-speaking world in the late s, and which may have
triggered the growth of compost tea research here. Even so,
the effort dates to Weltzien’s own early interest in soil sup-
pression of plant diseases (Weltzien ). In , Weltzien
presented some of his findings on compost extracts at the
International IFOAM conference held at University of Cal-
ifornia, Santa Cruz. At this same event we presented some
of our own work concerning how to make quality potting
REPRINT - Jrnl. of BIODYNAMICS
J 1
COMPOST TEAS: MICROBIAL HYGIENE AND QUALITY IN RELATION TO METHOD OF PREPARATION
mixes from composts (Brinton and Tresemer ).
Weltzien is no stranger to the U.S. and has been a frequent
visitor in the Dakotas where he and his wife have worked
on projects with Native Americans. Somewhere in this
time frame is possibly when the American developments
with compost extracts began. Weltzien and his colleagues
and numerous German doctoral candidates, have presented
a variety of findings in publications and journals worldwide
since that time (see Weltzien list in references).
The changes and in many cases apparent distortions of
Weltzien’s early work that took place since then in the U.S.
are difficult to trace clearly. These changes led ultimately to
a crisis point this past year with the formation of a national
Task Force convened under the direction of the USDA,
called the NOSB Task Force on Compost Teas, whose re-
port recently appeared (USDA-GOV ). Reports of
odorous teas, teas apparently containing E. coli, and gen-
eral public concern about risk of contamination of food
crops by live bacterial cultures, were the root causes for the
formation of the Task Force. Several investigations of com-
post teas were undertaken in a short period (Bess et al
; Duffy et al ; Millner et al. ). These studies
and our own reported herein were mostly conducted to de-
termine whether compost teas could be unsafe in terms of
bacteriologic risks, especially as regards E. coli. Clearly the
early work of Weltzien and our own work with Tränkner
focused on efficacy studies in the field with varying crop
pathogen systems; in other words, showing how and under
what circumstances quality composts could be prepared and
used to control plant fungal diseases. The current situation
largely eclipses this beneficial approach with bacterial con-
cerns. This is not surprising, since the concerns about food-
borne bacterial poisoning have forced themselves into the
forefront, and are likely to be with us for some time (Mead
et al. ). Organic and biodynamic growers who use
these practices must now exert new attention toward hy-
gienic management and potential consumer impact.
One of the reasons to perform an independent compost
tea study was to attempt to discern if the more recent em-
phasis in the US on mechanically aerated, “brewed” teas had
any advantages. The proponents of these new approaches
advocate, among other actions, a drastic shortening of the
European approach to the brew phase to as little as twelve
to twenty-four hours, which seems more convenient, plus
the addition of molasses and other adjuvants to enhance and
raise bacterial counts to very high levels, which might re-
sult in more disease control. Further, some of these ap-
proaches emphasize various ratios of microbes in the brews,
allegedly based on the concept of improving biodiversity of
soils and treated plant surfaces.
2 SUMMER, 2004
A drawback to these new approaches is the apparent
backlash against traditional European methods. Workers
who had focused for years on the scientific, yet field-oriented
European approaches to brewing teas found that these
methods were suddenly being labeled “anaerobic” in the
U.S. or that the teas thus produced possessed incorrect
“bacterial-fungal ratios”, a topic rarely if ever discussed in
the original German research, and also not supported by sci-
entific literature in the U.S. Had something been over-
looked? Were some teas now dangerous? Or was this sim-
ilar to the debate regarding aerobic versus anaerobic
composting that spread across America in the late s and
early s. In that school of thought, proper “aerobic”
composts were felt to require the turning of piles as often
as three times a day, up to thirty times in the life of a com-
post pile. Any grower not so doing was held to have a con-
dition that was “anaerobic.” This controversy led in part to
several studies on pile turning versus compost quality. The
USDA funded one such study, and an excerpt of it was pub-
lished in this journal (Brinton ). There was no scien-
tific basis to conclude that the enhanced turning promoted
an extra aerobic state or significantly improved compost
quality – in fact, more turning resulted in significantly in-
creased losses of nitrogen and organic matter. A similar
study supported by Agriculture Canada reached the same
conclusions (Jobin et al ). Thus, the research team felt
there was a chance that we would not be able to support sci-
entifically the new claims and charges being made with the
new tea methods.
In our compost tea project we partly wished to compare
the European versus the newer US approach, and further,
to confirm if E. coli could become a problem in either or
both systems. Our work with compost indicated that many
immature composts are available on the market, with little
or no quality testing behind them. We wanted to compare
the European approach, in which mature compost is steeped
in a barrel of water with gentle stirring over days, to mod-
ern technological approaches involving mechanical extrac-
tors and added agents as provided by “tea equipment com-
panies.” The attraction of the latter is that anyone can buy
a piece of equipment along with the compost and the in-
oculant to make suitable compost tea. One participant in
our study team represented a large national distributor of
garden care products. Their view was that once someone
bought such equipment (which possibly their company
would sell), then they most likely would revert to using their
own composts and additives rather than keep buying the
needed ingredients. Thus, we also wanted to test these pur-
chased compost units by substituting our own farm-made
compost, with and without using the commercial additives.
We split tea production so that an independent party was nutrient formulation that lacks molasses (This modification
also manufacturing the teas for our study using instructions was presumably based on recent information, because the
provided with the equipment. use of molasses is now understood to promote excessively
The resulting objective in this tea study focused mostly rapid colonization of possibly pathenogenic microorganisms
on convenience and consumer safety. Unfortunately, in brews). Both units are designed to provide constant bub-
whether the tea produced is efficacious or not against plant bling aeration for up to twenty-four hours, employing dif-
disease was not evaluated. We would refer readers to the fering modes of action. One unit sucks air from the top and
many published papers and grower reports, to get a sense expresses it into the solution through a central rapid-
of the practice and results. whirling mixer; the other unit forces air to the bottom of
To summarize, in this study our goals were: the unit and bubbles it upward via holes in a circular ring.
a) to evaluate whether two of the commercially available B: In addition to commercial units, a European method was
compost tea brewing systems could present a poten- established based on Brinton’s review of prevailing practice
tial pathogen risk to consumers when using them at (Brinton Report to Compost Tea Task Force ). This
home as directed, and as modified by using compost employed no additives other than stable compost, and was
readily at hand; prepared without aeration equipment by once daily stirring
b) to measure normal and expected bacterial (including in loosely covered vessels.
E. coli) and fungal growth and die-off in various teas C: Time- sub-samples of each compost tea were taken
by monitoring aerobic plate counts, anaerobic plate immediately after the start of the trial by on-site sampling
counts and fungal plate counts in the commercial and of the slurry into sterile containers, which were immediately
other teas; refrigerated. At twenty-four hours, the teas were all resam-
c) to compare the effects of mechanical aeration (com- pled (Time- samples) and together with the refrigerated
mercial systems) or lack of aeration (“European” sys- Time- sample, taken into the lab and microbiological
tem) on the four microbiological parameters listed tests commenced immediately. At forty-eight hours (or
above and upon the actual percentage of dissolved oxy- seventy-two hours from set-up), the laboratory staff re-
gen in the tea. sampled and analyzed the remaining tea, which had been
For the study a commercial research strain of E. coli stored, loosely covered, at room temperature in the lab. The
(American Type Culture Collection source) was used as the purpose of this was to assess degradation after termination
source for inoculated indicator organisms, as a test for pos-of aeration. Aeration of these teas only occurred during the
sible pathogen reproduction. The most probable number first twenty-four hours after their preparation.
(MPN) of E. coli at zero hours, twenty-four hours and sev- D: The same set-up and handling processes were repeated
enty-two hours was studied in the assembled teas and their the following week after inoculating the teas on-site at day
ingredients (compost and nutrient additives), and the water zero with  ml 8 E. coli in TSB (made to the turbidity of
used in their formulation. We also conducted side tests . McFarland standard).
making comfrey teas indoors and outdoors, as is practiced E: The following week, a third trial was initiated as before,
in gardening. We also see the need to perform future tests for the two s- and s- units, by substituting an immature
for biodynamic preparation , which may be considered compost from Woods End lab’s recent archive instead of the
a form of “compost tea” and also the similar horn-manure compost that was shipped with the product. This was to
extracts. partly fulfill objective (b) of our stated goal, i.e., to evalu-
ate a scenario in which a homeowner would use their own
Materials and methods compost instead of constantly re-purchasing the compost
Tea Preparation ( A-F) plus nutrients from the manufacturers of the tea equipment.
A-Two commercial tea extraction units (“s-” and “s-”) were F: In the lab, five European-style compost teas were set
provided by the manufacturers for the project, and were rep- using a : (volume) water to compost proportion (one was
resented as current, best-available technology as of June , actually comfrey tea). Three composts were mature and two
. The units were set up for compost tea extractions ac- were immature (using the Solvita®Maturity Test rank-
cording to product directions provided with the equip- ing)(Changa et al. ). One-gallon batches were pre-
ment. Both commercial products provide with the unit a pared. As noted in (b) above the European method uses nei-
standard compost (unknown source) plus a “nutrient” ther supplemental aeration nor added nutrients, but does
source that is added when the compost is placed into the involve stirring once each day.
unit with water. One manufacturer included a newer G: In the lab, the nutrients and the composts for s and s

REPRINT: BIODYNAMICS 3
COMPOST TEAS: MICROBIAL HYGIENE AND QUALITY IN RELATION TO METHOD OF PREPARATION
were mixed separately with sterile Phosphate Buffered Water
in the same ratio as the compost teas. These were also an-
alyzed separately after zero, forty-eight, and seventy-two
hours.
H: The on-site water and the laboratory water, as well as the
immature composts and the mature composts, were all ini-
tially tested for the presence of E.coli.
Microbiological Tests:
Sample-groups A-E above were analyzed for:
) E. coli using  tube MPN at dilutions -–- start-
ing with LST Broth and finishing with EC+MUG
Broth as in Standard Methods #F.
) Aerobic bacterial levels (Aerobic Plate Count) using
pour plates at five serial dilutions (with Phosphate
Buffered Water) ranging from - to - with Standard
Plate Count Agar (Difco) and incubated at  C for
forty-eight hours.
) Anaerobic bacterial levels (Anaerobic Plate Count)
using pour plates at five serial dilutions with Phos-
phate Buffered Water ranging from - to - with
Anaerobic Agar (Difco) incubated at  C for forty-
eight hours in anaerobic chambers using Oxoid
Anaerobic Indicators and MGC AnaeroPack-Anaero
to guarantee and monitor lack of oxygen.
) Total viable fungi – including yeast (Fungal Plate
Count) – using pour plates at serial dilutions with
Phosphate Buffered Water ranging from - to -,
made with Malt Extract Agar (Sigma) with added
Streptomycin sulfate ( mg/L MEA) incubated at
 C for  hours. For samples that received added
E. coli, the bacterial levels sometimes exceeded the
ability of the Streptomycin to inhibit them. This cre-
ated the possibility that fungal plate counts similar to
aerobic plate counts might be reflecting the E.coli
and not yeasts.
Sample group F was only tested for E.coli. A three-tube
three-row MPN was set using the same media (double
strength in row ) as in No. () above.
Results
About presence of E. coli in test samples
Escherichia coli is the bacterium commonly used to indicate
fecal contamination of soil, water, and so on. It is one small
strain within the group of “fecal coliform” bacteria. Of the
members of this group, E. coli is “more indicative of recent
fecal contamination and unsanitary processing in food than
the whole fecal coliform group.” (FDA/CFSAN BAM On-
line September )
Since E. coli does represent a large part of the normal and
4 SUMMER, 2004
necessary bacteria in the intestines of all birds and mammals,
when it is found in foods or water or compost tea it sug-
gests contact between fecal matter and those materials. The
contact could have been direct, as in animal manure, or in-
direct – as from soiled human hands. Microorganisms that
also inhabit the intestines cause many human diseases;
hence, the presence of E. coli indicates the possible presence
of any or all of those pathogens. E.coli can be (but usually
isn’t) a pathogen; certain strains or varieties of E.coli do cause
very serious diarrhea, kidney failure, blood infections, blad-
der infections and more. These varieties dwell in the
intestines along with the non-threatening E. coli. Further-
more, E. coli presence correlates closely with other pathogens
and pathogen indicators such as fecal streptococcus, E. coli
-h, and Clostridium perfringens (Brinton ).
General Findings
No E. coli was found in the two complete unamended
commercial compost teas, their components, or in the
European tea at time-. There was no increase of E coli
during twenty-four hours of aeration, and none after, when
aerators were halted thirty-six additional hours (see Table
 on page ).
However, both the commercial teas, and their compo-
nents, when “spiked” with E.coli, were clearly able to sup-
port the growth of E. coli. In one method the E. coli count
declined after the aerator was turned off. This is also seen
in later trials.
Both total aerobic and anaerobic bacteria counts in-
creased during extraction with the mechanical aerator units,
and aerobic bacteria increased in the European method
without mechanical aeration. The ratio of aerobic to anaer-
obic bacteria declined over time in the s and s aeration
batches and increased significantly in the European method
samples. In Unit s, aerobic bacteria increased dramatically
after the unit was turned off. Fungi increased too over
time. E coli added to the European method had declined
by seventy-two hours. These data suggest that simple ex-
planations as are common in the popular press do not aid
us in understanding what is happening; they certainly also
contradict the notion that by not stirring a tea it automat-
ically goes “anaerobic.”
In Table  (page ), we show commercial tea units in
which we substituted immature compost for the compost
that is shipped with the units. This handling would satisfy
our objective (a) in the introduction, where an individual
would use his or her own composts to make tea. As seen in
Table , these treatments appeared to suppress E. coli growth
within seventy-two hours, even after aeration was stopped
at twenty-four hours. In this particular immature compost,
 Table 1. Microbiological traits of aerated and European technology teas
Analysis S-1 machine method S-2 machine method European method
Test – time in hours as is with E. coli as is with E. coli as is with E. coli
E. coli MPN 0 <3 >11,000 <3 >11,000 <3 240
24 <3 >11,000 <3 >11,000 <3 NA
72 <3 7.4 <3 7.4 <3 4
Aerobic PC 0 4.20E + 09 1.30E + 10 6.00E + 05 >1.5E + 12 6.60E + 05 1.20E + 12
24 2.20E + 10 6.80E + 09 5.80E + 06 1.5E + 12 5.50E + 09 NA
72 5.50E + 09 1.00E + 06 2.80E + 12 >1.5E + 12 6.00E + 11 NA
Anaerobic PC 0 1.40E + 05 1.50E + 09 4.00E + 02 2.20E + 09 5.00E + 05 1.20E + 12
24 6.40E + 07 5.00E + 07 1.50E + 04 3.60E + 09 3.30E + 03 NA
72 3.60E + 07 1.00E + 05 2.00E + 11 NA 2.50E + 04 NA
Total fungi 0 3.30E + 03 3.50E + 09 3.00E + 02 2.20E + 09 3.30E + 03 1.20E + 05
24 5.40E + 05 1.60E + 11 1.30E + 03 4.40E + 09 9.00E + 02 NA
72 1.20E + 05 7.00E + 04 1.60E + 05 4.00E + 11 1.80E + 03 NA

Note: designations such as 1.00E + 07 mean 1 x 10 7.

Table 2. Compost tea units with immature composts

Analysis S-1 food + unripe compost S-2 machine method
MPN or CFU/ml as is E. coli added as is E. coli added
E. coli MPN 0 2100 >11,000 <3 >11,000
24 750 >11,000 <3 >11,000
72 93 7.4 <3 7.4
Aerobic PC 0 8.60E + 12 1.30E + 10 6.00E + 05 >1.5E + 12
24 2.40E + 10 6.80E + 09 5.80E + 06 1.5E + 12
72 1.56E + 06 1.00E + 06 2.80E + 12 >1.5E + 12
Anaerobic PC 0 2.00E + 09 1.50E + 09 4.00E + 02 2.20E + 09
24 1.00E + 07 5.00E + 07 1.50E + 04 3.60E + 09
72 1.60E + 05 1.00E + 05 2.00E + 11 NA
Aerobic:anaerobic ratio 0 4.30E + 03 3.50E + 09 3.00E + 02 2.20E + 09
24 2.40E + 03 1.60E + 11 1.30E + 03 4.40E + 09
72 1.00E + 01 7.00E + 04 1.60E + 05 4.00E + 11
Total fungi 0 9.00E + 11 2.70E + 05 6.00E + 04 8.00E + 02
24 2.50E + 07 NA 1.80E + 11 NA
72 1.70E + 07 NA NA NA

the initial tests showed < MPN E. coli per gram wet weight.
However, when added to the compost to make tea, the E.coli
was able to grow. The most likely explanation has to do with
sampling from the compost source relative to sample het-
erogeneity.
In Table  (page ) we show a similar scenario, but this
time the commercial compost tea units are run with only
the compost provided with the unit as sold, and no nutri-
ent inoculation. These results showed that both composts
provided had no measurable E. coli. In fact, the added E.
coli died off after seventy-two hours in these teas (even
though the aeration units were turned off after twenty-four
hours). Note that we added no molasses or other inoculum
to these batches.
One of the composts – s – had significantly more fungi
than bacteria when the tea was set up, but the amounts of
fungi diminished steadily thereafter. Both compost teas
gave significantly more aerobic bacteria counts after three
days standing than after twenty-four hours of mechanical
extraction. These and other results support the European
view that longer extractions give better performance; indeed,
in Weltzien and Tränkner’s work, better disease control
almost always resulted from the longer brewed teas.
In Table  (page ),we show the nutrient source only,

BIODYNAMICS 5
COMPOST TEAS: MICROBIAL HYGIENE AND QUALITY IN RELATION TO METHOD OF PREPARATION
Table 3. Aerator technology compost only w/o nutrients
Test trait hours brew S-1 food + unripe compost S-2 machine method
as is with E. coli as is with E. coli
E. coli MPN 0 <3 2.40E + 03 NA NA
24 <3 >11,000 <3 2.40E + 02
72 <3 NA <3 NA
Aerobic PC 0 2.10E + 09 7.80E + 10 6.00E + 05 5.6E + 11
(mpn/ml) 24 NA NA NA NA
72 2.20E + 07 NA 2.50E + 11 NA
Anaerobic PC 0 3.40E + 03 7.20E + 07 2.00E + 02 3.50E + 07
(mpn/ml) 24 NA NA NA NA
72 9.00E + 02 NA 7.80E + 03 NA
Aerobic:anaerobic ratio 0 6.2E + 05 1.00E + 00 3.00E + 03 1.60E + 04
24 NA NA NA NA
72 2.40E + 06 NA 3.20E + 09 NA
Total fungi 0 9.00E + 02 3.10E + 03 2.00E + 02 9.00E + 02
(mpn/ml) 24 3.10E + 03 NA 1.20E + 03 NA
72 1.00E + 03 NA 1.80E + 03 NA

Table 4. Commercial tea unit, nutrient source only

Test trait hours brew S-1 food + unripe compost S-2 machine method
as is with E. coli as is with E. coli
E. coli MPN 0 <3 NA <3 NA
24 <3 >11,000 NA >11,000
72 <3 >11,000 <3 >11,000
Aerobic PC 0 1.00E + 02 NA <100 NA
(cfu/ml) 24 NA NA NA NA
72 <100 NA 2.90E + 08 NA
Anaerobic PC 0 1.00E + 02 NA 1.00E + 02 NA
(cfu/ml) 24 NA NA NA NA
72 <100 NA 9.00E + 03 NA

which is the food-inoculum provided with the two com-
mercial units. There were relatively low counts of bacteria,
especially in the s units, and in the s some more grew, es-
pecially later (after the aerators were turned off ). In any
event, E. coli certainly did not die off after being added –
indeed these inocula may have favored their growth, com-
pared to the die-off seen in Table .
A similar result is seen in that there is no evident E. coli
in the standard compost, but with inoculation, the E. coli
grew readily, at least in unit s. Results were inconclusive
in s.
The European-style teas, which were made with mature
compost known to contain some E. coli, also appeared to
inhibit the growth of that E. coli. European-style teas made
with immature composts also reduced the E. coli levels
over time. Perhaps the absence of a readily available carbon
substrate (i.e., no molasses) and the absence of active aer-
ation provided harsher survival circumstances for E. coli
replication. It is a very common error in literature on com-
post teas that “aerated teas” are thought to be “free of po-
tential pathogens.” This would only be true in the case of
obligate anaerobes, such a Clostridia spp., whereas E. coli in
contrast is readily cultured under aerobic conditions.
In Table , we observe our results with comfrey tea. The
extract was prepared using a common organic gardening
formula of a : fresh-weight:water mixture. This was first
prepared outdoors in a -liter open-top container, with
daily stirring. This tea was thus exposed to the environment
in an area populated by birds and subjected to frequent
human handling. The solution smelled very bad. When
tested, this comfrey tea understandably had very high lev-
els of E.coli. However, when the same tea was prepared in

6 SUMMER, 2004

REPRINT
Table 5. Comfrey tea prepared w/o mechanical aerator aerobic to anaerobic microbes is high to extremely high
outdoors and in lab throughout. There is no evidence therefore of an increase
Analysis hours brew outdoors in lab in anaerobic activity. Finally, all these teas were odorless.
E. coli 0 NA <3
mpn/ml 72 NA <3 Discussion
120 NA <3 The ultimate goal of this and other efforts is to have no E.
7200 >110000 NA coli present in compost teas. The newly recommended
Aerobic 0 NA 1.10E + 05 USDA-NOP standard is that teas shall possess no more than
(cfu/ml) 72 NA >2.40E + 12  cfu/ ml of E. coli or no more than  cfu/ ml of
120 NA >1.80E + 12 enterococci. Clearly, it is intended that compost teas will be
7200 4E + 12 NA applied to food plants, including those that may be con-
Anaerobic 0 NA 1.60E + 03 sumed without thorough washing. According to this in-
(cfu/ml) 72 NA 6.50E + 12 vestigation, if a small amount of E. coli is introduced into
120 NA >2.20E + 12 a tea, its population levels will decrease to the point of ex-
2400 4.40E + 11 NA tinction in –  hours. It is possible therefore that short-
Aerobic:anaerobic ratio 0 NA 69 term brews, with added sugars, may in fact have represented
72 NA 3.7 one of the least safe practices. New concern about this has
120 NA 8200 caused tea makers to start withdrawing at least molasses
7200 9.1 NA from their brews (personal communication, Bob Cantisano,
Total fungi/ml 0 NA 3.00E + 02 ). Avoiding the introduction of unwanted microbes
72 NA 5.10E + 11 into tea is obviously the best approach. Our expectation
120 NA 5.70E + 08 of a large and continuing increase of E.coli populations in
7200 1.30E + 02 NA teas was not validated by evidence in the study, and only
when large amounts of E.coli were added to the teas, did the
levels remain high. These results were independent of the
the lab under more controlled conditions – using fresh presence or absence of aeration.
harvested but un-washed leaves, touched only by sterile im-
plements and made with well water (tested to be E. coli- Aerobic Bacterial Levels.
free), and kept loosely covered – it showed absolutely no High levels of aerobic bacteria (- per ml) apparently
measurable E. coli over  hours. Both aerobic and anaer- endow fungal disease resistance to plants. This may be due
obic plate counts continued to rise over time in the labo- to their ability to metabolize unusable molecules into forms
ratory extracted samples, without aeration. This indicates that plants can absorb and assimilate. Boehm and Hoitink
clearly that some simple practices in hygienic handling () have argued that one must have sustained high mi-
(washing tools before use, using clean water and providing crobial activity to confer disease control from composts, but
protection from birds over-flying the tanks!) may be very they were not dealing with compost teas. Some more recent
helpful in enabling growers to prepare safe extracts. studies refined this view. They show that the disease sup-
In Table  (page ), we show the European method re- pression was only high at the beginning of the period of high
peated for two mature composts and one immature com- microbial activity and that the species of bacteria do change,
post. Mature composts were Solvita – and immature, strongly suggesting that a particular group of bacteria caus-
where used, were <. E. coli counts in the mature composts, ing the suppression is replaced by others in succession.
which were low and declined steadily during the tea prepa- This would mean that “lots of bacteria” aren’t enough over
ration process. In the immature compost, E. coli was slightly time to maintain disease control. The expectation in the
higher, but also declined during the tea preparation, with compost tea work was that the APC (aerobic plate count)
stirring once per day. Thus we see no evidence that the orig- would rise until either the oxygenation was stopped or the
inal Weltzien-type approach to preparing tea extracts with nutrient supply became low. The more rapid the rise in
reduced technology is anaerobic or leads to reproduction APC the more rapidly the fall would begin. Our data do
of pathogens. support this prediction, although not overwhelmingly.
It is clear from these findings that aerobic bacteria counts Without active aeration, APC in the European method teas
in the teas are variable but mostly very high, and increase was predicted to increase more slowly than in the other teas;
or decrease slightly over time. Furthermore, the ratio of however, this was also not the case. It may be some time be-

BIODYNAMICS 7
COMPOST TEAS: MICROBIAL HYGIENE AND QUALITY IN RELATION TO METHOD OF PREPARATION
Table 6. European method teas with various composts
Euro mature–B Euro mature–C Euro immature–B
Strain hours brew cfu/ml cfu/ml cfu/ml
E. coli 0 7 4 940
72 <3 3 94
120 <3 3 2
Aerobes 0 1.90E + 09 2.40E + 11 2.60E + 05
72 4.60E + 12 >1.40E + 12 9.40E + 07
120 3.10E + 09 8.00E + 08 6.80E + 07
Anaerobes 0 4.60E + 03 1.20E + 05 8.00E + 04
72 4.00E + 02 2.00E + 03 6.60E + 03
120 1.00E + 01 2.80E + 03 2.00E + 02
Aerobic:anaerobic ratio 0 4.10E + 05 2.20E + 06 3.20E + 00
72 1.20E + 09 7.00E + 11 1.40E + 05
120 3.10E + 08 2.90E + 05 3.40E + 05
Total fungi 0 4.10E + 05 1.60E + 03 4.00E + 00
72 1.20E + 07 1.00E + 02 1.40E + 03
120 3.10E + 09 1.00E + 02 3.40E + 05

fore these relationships are understood and we have a clear
sense which microbes and/or what set of factors is confer-
ring control. Considering the complexity of the subject, a
holistic expectation is appropriate. Certainly the impression
one gains from the popular press that the means to make
compost teas is all worked out and accessible through sim-
ple formulas or recipes, is not supported by any practical
or scientific results.
Anaerobic Bacterial Levels
The anaerobic bacteria are generally considered to be un-
desirable: some produce objectionable odors that are also
phytotoxic and others convert plant-nutrients into unusable
compounds. However, anaerobes are not strictly reliant on
fixed regimes; facultative organisms that can survive aero-
bic and anaerobic conditions are prominent in nature.
Because of the low solubility of oxygen in water, the Eu-
ropean teas would be expected to become a suitable anaer-
obic environment. However, without active aeration, these
European teas did not develop large anaerobic bacterial
counts as predicted. Even the teas allowed to steep for 
hours did not support a large anaerobic population, or one
that appeared appreciably different to the mechanically
aerated teas.
It should be pointed out that the relative insolubility of
oxygen in water (.–. mg/L water at °C) prevents more
than a minimum amount from dissolving, whether aerated
or not. This same solubility factor may prevent the oxygen
concentrations from plunging low enough to allow the ob-
ligate anaerobes to reproduce (some require as low as <.
mg/L air). Certainly the concept of physically frothing the
water with high tech equipment, analogous to the early
s approach of beating composts continually to aid aer-
ation, is inappropriate. Only so much oxygen will be ab-
sorbed, while the rest is thrown off. Growers who do not use
the high tech approaches, therefore, need not feel that their sim-
ple approaches are incorrect. However, more care and caution
with regard to hygiene is definitely in order. More chemistry
and physics knowledge is needed to unravel the relation-
ships of equipment and handling to hygiene and quality.
Total Viable Fungi
Certain fungi repress the growth of other fungi that parasitize
plants. Other fungi are desired for their ability to degrade
organic compounds into forms bacteria can use. It is most
likely a favorable thing to have consistent levels of fungi in
compost teas. This study however did not attempt to pur-
sue fungal investigations to any particular extent, but only
to observe levels as influenced by the various technologies and
treatments.
We observed fungal stability in the teas throughout their
recommended use time. The total numbers of fungi appear
to go into some decline at seventy-two hours in the aerated
teas but not the European teas. More work will have to be
done to understand these influences.
Conclusions
This study represents a preliminary look at bacterial and
fungal parameters in some compost teas prepared using two
different technologies: two commercial brewing systems

8 SUMMER, 2004
both based on differing forms of mechanical aeration ap-
plied to a compost/nutrient solution and five compost/water
mixtures with brief daily stirring. The study sought to see
how E. coli population size would behave in these teas, and
observe how great an impact mechanical aeration makes on
the bacterial character of a compost tea.
a) The two commercial systems did produce E. coli-free
teas.
b) The two commercial systems, and their isolated in-
gredients, when inoculated with E. coli, did support
its growth.
c) E. coli should be prevented access to all compost teas
by () clean handling techniques and () using com-
posts that have no tested E. coli (very mature, no new
manures, no exposure to fecal matter during storage).
d) At least for small-scale tea brewing, there seems to be
equal growth of desirable microbes in both aerated
and non-aerated systems.
Based on this, we believe there may be some misunder-
standing about aeration of compost teas and about what
constitute anaerobic conditions. Furthermore, we see no
compelling evidence here that aerator equipment makes any
contribution whatsoever to the making of – gallon
(– liter) batches of compost tea, as long as the com-
post is of reasonable quality. However, since growers may
make teas outdoors, in improperly cleaned containers, or
where animals and birds may have access, and exposure to
dusts may occur, there may be increased opportunity for
contamination. It is urged that growers and composters
focus attention on the compost quality and hygienic cir-
cumstances surrounding their manufacture, while the ac-
tual form of technology may be of less significance.
Finally, in a certain sense, our study reveals, historically
speaking, how a variety of early events shaped a new crisis
that in turn is leading to new and improved understand-
ings. Early concepts and popular misconceptions about
microbes and aeration, plus the rapid adaptation of “brew
thinking” in terms of how to grow as much bacteria as
rapidly as possible, explains what many have come to regard
now as a form of self-fulfilling prophecy. A very zealous early
approach to enhanced brewing led among other things to
very odorous teas (due especially to use of molasses and
other additives), and culminated in the invention of tea ex-
traction equipment designed to help fix the aerobic prob-
lem. Thus, the compost tea field in America has had an ac-
cidental and discontinuous development course. Perhaps
much of the confusion could have been avoided if some at-
tention had been paid to the wealth of previously published
literature and if more cross-pollination had occurred be-
tween present-day producers and earlier practitioners.
References
Bess, V. H., R. B. S. Manes, and J. L. Snodgrass.  E. coli survival
in compost tea using different nutrient substrates. Proceedings 2002
International Symposium Composting and Compost Utilization.
Boehm, M.J., and Hoitink, H.A.J. . Sustenance of microbial ac-
tivity in potting mixes and its impact on severity of Pythium root
rot of Pointsettia. Phytopathology :‒.
Boehm, M.J, Tianyun Wu, Alex G. Stone, Bart Kraakman, Donna
A. Iannotti, G. Edwin Wilson, Laurence V. Madden, and Harry
A. Hoitink. . Cross-polarized magic-angle spinning c nu-
clear magnetic resonance spectroscopic characterization of soil or-
ganic matter relative to culturable bacterial species composition
and sustained biological control of Pythium root rot. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology :‒.
Brinton, W. . The control of plant pathogenic fungi by use of
compost teas. BIODYNAMICS :‒.
———. . Sustainability of Modern Composting: Intensification
versus Costs and Quality. BIODYNAMICS :‒
———. . Microbiological test traits and hygiene of compost
products. Proceedings, World Congress on Hygiene of Organic
Farming. Michigan State University, March .
Brinton, W.F, A. Tränkner, M. Droffner. . Investigations into liq-
uid compost extracts. Biocycle , no. :‒.
Brinton W. and D. Tresemer. . Organic growing media: use of
compost for potting mixes. Proceedings, IFOAM, Santa Cruz
Changa, C.M , P. Wang, M.E. Watson, H.A.J. Hoitink, and F.C.
Michel Jr. . Assessment of the reliability of a commercial ma-
turity test kit for compost. Compost Science & Utilization , no.
: ‒.
Duffy, B., C. Sarreal, R. Subbarao, and L. Stanker. . Effect of mo-
lasses on regrowth of E. coli O:H and Salmonella in compost
teas. Compost Science and Utilization ():‒.
Jobin, P., J. Petit, C. Bilodeau, and W. Brinton. . Evaluation de
differents systems de compostage de fumier a la ferme. Ministère de
L’Agriculture du Québec. (MAPAQ)
Mead, P.S., L. Slutsker, V. Dietz, L.F. McCaig, J.S. Bresee, C. Shapiro,
P.M. Griffin, and R.V. Tauxe. . Food-related illness and death
in the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases :‒.
Millner, P., D. Ingram, W. Brinton, and P. Storms. . Compost
tea microbial safety issues: information and data summary. Un-
published manuscript, USDA-ARS-SMSL and WERL.
USDA-GOV. . Report of the Compost Tea Task Force. At
<http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop>
Weitzien, H.C. . Untersuchungen über die Ursachen der Keim-
hemmung von Pilzsporen im Boden. Zbl. Bakt. Parasit. Infekt.
Hyg. :‒.
———. . The effects of compost extracts on plant health. In: P.
Allen and D. Van Dusen, “Global perspectives on agroecology and
sustainable agricultural systems.” Proc. 6. IFOAM-Meeting :
‒. Publ. Univ. of Calif., Santa Cruz.
BIODYNAMICS 9
COMPOST TEAS: MICROBIAL HYGIENE AND QUALITY IN RELATION TO METHOD OF PREPARATION
———. . Some effects of composted organic materials on plant
health. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment : –.
———. a. Advances in biological control of fungal leaf pathogens
through fermented organic substances and microorganisms. In:
J.E. Cassida, Pesticides and Alternatives. –. Elsevier Science
Publishers.
———. b. The use of composted materials for leaf disease sup-
pression in field crops. BCPC Mono. , Organic and Low Input
Agriculture. –.
———. c. Neue Forschungen zum Thema “Kompost und
Pflanzengesundheit.” . Hochschultagung der Landwirstschaftl.
Fakultät der Univ. Bonn. –.
———. . Biocontrol of foliar fungal diseases with compost ex-
tracts. In: J.H. Andrews, S. Hirano, Microbial Ecology of
Leaves,.Brock Springer Series in Contemporary Bioscience, BSBN
--, –.
10 SUMMER, 2004- Reprinted from Journal of Biodynamics Vol.2:36-45
Weitzien, H.C., and N. Ketterer. a. Control of downy mildew,
Plasmopara viticola (DE BARY) BERLESE et de TONI, on
grapevine leaves through water extracts of composted organic
wastes. J. Phytopathol. :–.
———. b. Control of Phytophthora infestans on tomato leaves
and potato tubers through water extracts of composted organic
wastes. Phytopathol. :, Abstract .
Weltzien, H.C. and A. Tränkner. . Biologische Bekämpfung von
pilzlichen Pflanzenkrankheiten mit kompostierten organischen
Reststoffen. In: Univ. of Bonn (ed.) Verantwortung für die Zukunft.
Klima- und Umweltforschung an der Universität Bonn. –.
P. Storms is microbiologist, W. Brinton is agricultural chemist, and E.
Evans is biologist for Woods End Research Laboratory; J. Hill is in the
research department for Johnny’s Selected Seeds of Albion, Maine.
*William Brinton can be contacted at <will@woodsend.org>.